With closing arguments set to begin today, the case against 10 Long Beach youths accused of beating three white women Halloween night hinges almost entirely on identifications made in a Ralphs parking lot the night of the attack.
In a procedure known as a field show-up, police told the victims and a reputed witness that the youths -- nine girls and a boy, ages 12 to 17 -- were suspects and asked if they recognized them from the melee. In several subsequent police interviews, witnesses were never asked to pick the juveniles out of a lineup that included non-suspects: a means to test their memory that experts say is a standard and crucial procedure. Nor were they asked to identify them in open court.
Long Beach Police Cmdr. Jeffry Johnson said the field show-up is the most accurate form of identification in a case like this. "Especially when you talk about numerous suspects, you have to go with immediate recollection," he said.
But experts say field show-ups are inherently fallible and rarely used in isolation.
"I can't remember ever seeing a case go to trial in which the only identification is a field show-up," said Kathy Pezdek, a professor at Claremont Graduate University and expert witness in the area of eyewitness identification, in an interview. "It's extremely unusual."
Much of what has occurred in the Long Beach courtroom of Judge Gibson W. Lee, however, is unusual. The mild-mannered jurist has let attorneys deliver long fiery speeches, make objection after objection that all but stopped the testimony and ignore his orders to stick to the facts of the case.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Andrea Bouas has accused the youths of having gang connections, of orchestrating the destruction of a witness' car, of calling the witness "a stupid bitch" outside of court to intimidate her. None of Bouas' accusations are based on evidence in the case, and they normally would have been heard out of the presence of a jury.
But the Long Beach hate-crime case highlights a critical -- and many experts say troublesome -- difference between adult and juvenile court: There are no juries in juvenile court; a judge decides the minors' fate.
"A jury is the great equalizer," said Cyn Yamashiro, a professor at Loyola Law School and director of its Center for Juvenile Law and Policy. "It is the true challenge to the people's case. That is the component of due process that is absent in the juvenile system."
